Few thoughts on <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>θ</mml:mi></mml:math> and the electric dipole moments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I highlight a few thoughts on the contribution to the dipole moments from the so-called $\ensuremath{\theta}$ parameter. The dipole moments are known can be generated by $\ensuremath{\theta}$. In fact, the renowned strong $\mathcal{CP}$ problem was formulated as a result of nonobservation of the dipole moments. What is less known is that there is another parameter of the theory, the ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}$ which becomes also a physical and observable parameter of the system when some conditions are met. This claim should be contrasted with conventional (and very naive) viewpoint that the ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}$ is unphysical and unobservable. A specific manifestation of this phenomenon is the so-called Witten effect when the magnetic monopole becomes the dyon with induced electric charge ${e}^{\ensuremath{'}}=\ensuremath{-}e\frac{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}}{2\ensuremath{\pi}}$. We argued that the similar arguments suggest that the electric magnetic dipole moment $\ensuremath{\mu}$ of any microscopical configuration in the background of ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}$ generates the electric dipole moment $⟨{d}_{\mathrm{ind}}⟩$ proportional to ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}$, i.e., $⟨{d}_{\mathrm{ind}}⟩=\ensuremath{-}\frac{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}\ifmmode\cdot\else\textperiodcentered\fi{}\ensuremath{\alpha}}{\ensuremath{\pi}}\ensuremath{\mu}$. We also argue that many $\mathcal{CP}$ odd correlations such as $⟨{\stackrel{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}{B}}_{\mathrm{ext}}\ifmmode\cdot\else\textperiodcentered\fi{}\stackrel{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}{E}⟩=\ensuremath{-}\frac{\ensuremath{\alpha}{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{\mathrm{QED}}}{\ensuremath{\pi}}{\stackrel{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}{B}}_{\mathrm{ext}}^{2}$ will be generated in the background of an external magnetic field ${\stackrel{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}{B}}_{\mathrm{ext}}$ as a result of the same physics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".